Then what, pray tell, would be the purpose of such a Commandment? That it be applied where convenient and discarded when not? What good would come of such a practice? Are muslims exhorted to obey the law until it serves them not to? This makes no sense. If there is some loving god wandering about, I doubt he intends us to go around killing each other.
And as for the whole concept of "event bound", then I may say that your objections confirm my initial hypothesis - that islam is hardwired into a medieval mental construct. So, war with any muslim nation, presumably, cannot end with peace but only i) death, ii) subjugation ("dhimmitude") or iii) conversion. If one does not accept dhimmitude, one must convert or die. Does this seem like a fair perspective to you? Should other nations begin enacting it in defeated muslim nations, but from the other perspective? Then, when muslims convert, should they convert to Christianity or Judaism? And how could my position on abrogation possibly be falsely taken? You have confirmed it, just above. The outcome for subjugated peoples in war with an islamic nation (for whatever reason, apparently, political or otherwise) may result in conversion - unless one wishes to die or pay oppressive, humiliating taxes (in the old days they would be collected "by hand", with the payer in a humiliating pose, after which they could be rapped on the head, as I recall). So religion is forcibly imposed - and would be, if one couldn't pay the tax. This is alluded to in several works including "The Sword of the Prophet".
It is now. It wasn't for a long time, until the non-muslim tax base started to tank for various reasons. As for jizya being higher than zakaat - well, you'd have to complain to those innumerable legions who kept making it higher, not me. I presume the fact that it was higher comes from the dislike cultivated for non-muslims in the Quran and Hadiths, rather than being specifically in them as a fixed level - unlike how women are only entitled to one half the inheritance of men (Q 4:11).
What interest, exactly, have I in the pillars of islam? The first one seems to be the most contentious, I will say, in islam's relations with Christians - this harping on and on about "shirk” has promoted a surprising amount of hate for non-muslims there – witness the shocked comments by a survivor of the attacks in Jordan that “muslims were killing muslims now”. In any event, I am unconcerned with islam save where it promotes itself as some kind of viable alternative to any other worldview, such as secularism. And also where it threatens the lives and livelihoods of those on whom it is imposed (societally or otherwise). Beyond that, if islam wants to claim that little men live in the clouds or that magical prophets have the power to move the moon, I confess that I do not care.
Actually, I do know all about the history of the Church (snap question: which one? LOL) and I can say without the slightest hesitation that the Christian body count is miniscule compared to the toll of human deaths that islam is responsible for. What was it, now: 50 million Hindus during the Sufi (Sufi! Of all Islamic sects) invasion of India? About 2 million Armenians from 1908-1925 or so. God (if he exists) knows how many simple inhabitants of Islamic countries have gone under the knife merely for being different, but the non-islamic population of Istanbul was 50% a century ago, 1% today. If you want to compare figures, that can be done.
But the second point is simply not true: Islamic theology does indeed permit killing in wartime or anytime someone leaves islam. “If anyone leaves his religion [islam], kill him” said Mohammed (cited by al-Buhkari). You yourself have expressed agreement with this sentiment, and with the murder of homosexuals. What, then, should we say of islam – that it does <i>not</i> condone murder? How can this statement possibly jive with the above?
Again – this reduces to the three options of i) conversion, ii) economic slavery (“dhimmitude”) or iii) death. If one will not convert, and refuses to behave as an inferior citizen in a muslim-ruled or islamically-conquered nation, what remains? Seriously, you have to think about these issues. You indicate poor logical thought processes besides an utter contempt for the life of fellow humans merely because they abandon islam or happen to be homosexual. That, sir, is repugnant and deviant.
“The law” being the Ten Commandments. Not the entire OT. I think you fail to understand the key point of the OT and NT – be kind to your neighbour, “all else [being] commentary”. Besides the points about being kind to “strangers in the land, as you were once strangers in Egypt”. I also hardly think Jesus would approve of the murder of apostates – I suppose he was just funny that way.
Well, you seem to think you have me pegged.
I submit that this has rather more with you failing to understand the depth of hypocrisy that islam invokes in its theological and moral denunciations of other religions. I might also add that my scepticism of islam is not the result of 9/11, but that 9/11 was of course indicative of islam itself. But since we're now speculating, I should now speculate that you have rather your own reasons for not listening, and that they are rooted in something a little older than 9/11.
Peace for you when you revoke your opinion on apostates and homosexuals,
Geoff
